New Delhi: DMK MP Kanimozhi and three others, arrested for their alleged roles in the 2G spectrum allocation case, moved the Delhi High Court on Saturday for bail.

Besides Kanimozhi, the three others who moved the High Court against a special court order denying them bail two days ago, are DMK-run Kalaignar TV MD Sharad Kumar and Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Pvt Ltd directors Asif Balwa and Rajiv Agarwal.

DMK Supremo's daughter Kanimozhi has been confined in Tihar Jail since her arrest on May 20. She was denied bail on Thursday by the trial court despite CBI not objecting to pleas for bail by her and four others.

Special Judge O P Saini denied them the bail saying the charges against them are of grave nature and the CBI's concession of not objecting their bail pleas was of "no consequence in the eyes of law".

The CBI had preferred not to oppose the bail pleas of Kanimozhi, Kalaignar TV MD Sharad Kumar, Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables directors Asif Balwa and Rajiv Agarwal and Bollywood filmmaker Karim Morani, whose names had figured in the supplementary chargesheet filed on April 25.

The accused have been in the jail for last five to nine months.

Denying bail to Kanimozhi, the court had also rejected her plea for it on grounds of being a woman, saying that she "belongs to upper echelons of society and is also a member of Parliament" and cannot be suffering on account of being a woman.

Special Judge Saini had dismissed the bail pleas of a total of eight accused on Thursday. Others whose bail pleas had been dismissed are former Telecom Minister A Raja's erstwhile Private Secretary R K Chandolia and former Telecom Secretary Siddharth Behura, besides Swan Telecom promoter Shahid Usman Balwa. Raja had not moved court for bail.

Dismissing Morani's submission that he was sick and not in good health and should be granted bail as per section 437 of the CrPC, the judge said the medical records do not suggests that "standard of illness of Morani is so high as to categories his custody as detrimental to his health."

Regarding defence counsel's contentions that they should be granted bail as there was no apprehension of their influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidences, the court said this is a case of "unprecedented nature" which suggests that witnesses would be under a lot of pressure.